pull down to refresh

131 sats \ 7 replies \ @grayruby 27 Apr \ parent \ on: SN release: LNC attached wallet, 100k wallet limit, search bookmarks, more meta
Yes I am aware. I wasn't implying it wasn't possible. I was just saying it is not optimal. Maybe wallet limit should be 110k considering territories.
write
preview
41 sats \ 6 replies \ @k00b OP 27 Apr
I see. Let’s give a run and see how it goes first.
reply
71 sats \ 5 replies \ @jeff 27 Apr
I agree with @grayruby, this is a hassle/annoying.
Just change to 120k.
Or
Perhaps territory ownership could come with higher limit.
reply
58 sats \ 4 replies \ @k00b OP 27 Apr freebie
I agree with both of you for the record. Infinite custodial balances have the best UX.
reply
41 sats \ 3 replies \ @grayruby 27 Apr
Doesn't need to be infinite.
reply
176 sats \ 2 replies \ @k00b OP 27 Apr
I just meant larger custodial balances have better UX than smaller ones. People paying yearly territories will want the limit higher than the yearly cost too.
We are progressively moving to a non-custodial experience. Every increment will inconvenience us, but we need the inconvenience so we can learn how to deal with it.
I still haven't written up a detailed post on our plans. I'll try to write something up this weekend.
reply
110 sats \ 1 reply \ @grayruby 27 Apr
Paying for territories once or once yearly via invoice is not really an inconvenience. Whatever you guys want to do but there seems to be little difference between 100k limit and a 120k limit as Jeff suggested.
I understand what you are trying to accomplish but as we saw with zapping on nostr when Damus got removed from app store the small bit of friction between zapping in note and zapping in profile had a material effect on behavior. I get it is not easy to strike the balance between the best possible UX and a less custodial experience, I don't envy the trade offs you need to make. Again whatever you guys want to do I will support.
reply
20 sats \ 0 replies \ @go 27 Apr
Or lower the territory fee to 95k
reply